J. Nannoplankton Res. 33 (1), 2014, pp49-57 © 2014 International Nannoplankton Association

49

Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.: A new species ofCatinaster from the middle Miocene Mid-Atlantic
Coastal Plain
Jean M. Self-Trail

U.S. Geological Survey, 926A National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, Virginia: jstrail@usgs.gov.

Abstract: High-resolution analysis of sediments from four coreholes associated with the Chesapeake Bay impact

crater has resulted in the identification of a new species, Catinaster virginianus. This species is similar to Catinastercoalitus coalitus, but differs by having a proximal stem. The first occurrence of C. virginianus is in Zone NN5, andis older than any previously identified Catinaster. This species has been identified previously as Catinaster sp. fromthe Gulf of Mexico and the Carpathian Foredeep and suggests both a global distribution and synchronous stratigraphic
range. Morphologic similarities with Discoaster variabilis may suggest a taxonomic relationship to the D. variabilis
lineage.

Keywords: Calcareous nannofossils, biostratigraphy, Miocene, taxonomy, Catinaster1. Introduction
A new species of calcareous nannofossil, Catinaster virginianus, was identified during studies of multiple coreholes from the Chesapeake Bay impact structure (Edwards
et al., 2005, 2010) (Figure 1). Catinaster virginianus isan easily identifiable robust form that has a distinctly
older range than any other known species of Catinaster.
Although never very abundant, it is often recognizable
even in heavily overgrown samples. The occurrence of
this species has been tied to the East Coast and Atlantic
Miocene dinoflagellate zones of de Verteuil and Norris(1996) and de Verteuil (1997) in several cores, and thus
its early stratigraphic range is well documented, making
it a potentially useful biozone marker for the middle Miocene (Figure 2).
Catinaster coalitus has long been used as a zonal
marker for sediments deposited in low latitude and temperate settings of upper Miocene age (Martini and Bramlette, 1963; Bramlette and Wilcoxon, 1967; Martini,
1971; Bukry, 1973; Okada and Bukry, 1980). Early (older) catinaster-like forms variously attributed to the genera
Catinaster or Discoaster have been recorded from a variety of localities. Aubry (1993) attributed occurrences ofCatinaster coalitus and Catinaster sp. in sediments older
than 10.9 Ma in the Eureka core (E68-136) in the Gulf of
Mexico to slumping. Denne (2008) recorded the presenceof a middle Miocene nannofossil restricted to Zone NN5that he called “a variety of D. sanmiguelensis” as Catinaster sp. “A”, also from the Gulf of Mexico. Although
he suggested that this form is a variety of discoaster, healso noted that it has the basket shape typical of Catinaster when seen in side view. Sediments from the Carpathian Foredeep (Czech Republic) assigned to Zone NN5
contain enigmatic specimens of Catinaster sp., similar toCatinaster? sp. of Perch-Nielsen (1985), that are hypothesized by Svabenicka (2002) to be possibly the central
portion of a broken D. musicus, even though that species
was not recorded at that locality. Edwards et al., (2005,2010) recorded the presence of Catinaster cf. C. coalitus
from middle Miocene (Zone NN5-NN6) sediments of the
Chesapeake Bay impact structure and suggested that theCatinaster genus evolved approximately 14 Ma.
Catinaster virginianus has only been found in middle

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 49

Figure 1. A) map showing the location of the Martinak State Park corehole in Maryland; B) map showing the location of the Chesapeake Bay
impact structure and the USGS-NASA Langley corehole, the Watkins
Elementary School corehole, and the Ashby corehole in Virginia. Smallinsert in map B shows the location of both of these maps to each otherand to the Eastern seaboard of the United States.

11/08/2014 12:35

50

Jean Self Trail
Figure 2. Geochronologic chart
showing the relative position of
the calcareous nannofossil Martini (1971) zones to the East Coastdinoflagellate zones of de Verteuiland Norris (1996) and de Verteuil(1997) and to the geologic timescale of Gradstein et al. (2012).
Correlation of nannofossil eventsto the timescale is based on Hilgen et al. (2012). Upward pointing triangles indicate a first occurrence datum; downward pointing
triangles indicate a last occurrence
datum.

(Powars et al., 2005; Edwards et al., 2010).
The purpose of this paper is to describe and name thisnew species of Catinaster and to comment on its biostratigraphic range, to discuss the evolution of the Catinastergenus from Discoaster, and to speculate on the possiblemodes of global dissemination for this new species.

Table 1. Number of specimens of Catinaster virginianus against 400
total calcareous nannofossils counted.

to upper Miocene sediments of the Plum Point and Calvert Beach Members of the Calvert Formation and theupper Miocene sediments of the basal St. Marys Formation. Sediments of the Calvert and St. Marys Formations
typically consist of fossiliferous, massive to thinly bedded
silty clays to clayey silts. Microfossils (calcareous nannofossils, dinoflagellates, and diatoms) are common. Paleoenvironmental interpretation based on sediment typeand fossil content indicates that the Calvert Formation
was deposited in a warm, nearshore to shallow shelf setting and the St. Marys was deposited in a marine inner
to outer shelf setting, with possible cool water upwelling

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 50

2. Materials and Methods
The four cores utilized for this study are the Watkins Elementary School (ES) core (lat 37°04’31.921”N; long
76°27’30.650”W), the USGS-NASA Langley core (lat37°05’44.28”N; long 76°23’08.96”W) and the Ashby core (lat 36°55’59.407”N; long 76°31’47.021”W),
from Virginia, and the Martinak State Park core (lat
38°51’58.00”N; long 75°50’17.02”W) from Caroline
County, Maryland. The Virginia cores are located in the
Chesapeake Bay impact structure in Virginia (Figure 1b)
and the Maryland core is located approximately 106 miles(170 km) north of the northern edge of the crater (Figure
1a).
Samples were taken from the center of freshly broken
core segments in order to avoid contamination by drilling
fluid. Smear slides were prepared using the double slurry
method of Watkins and Bergen (2003) and mounted with
Norland Optical Adhesive 61. Slides were scanned usinga Zeiss Axioplan 2 light microscope at x1250 magnification under cross-polarized light (XPL) and plane parallel
light (PL) and photographed at x2000. Scanning electron
microscope photomicrographs were taken on a Jeol JSM6400. Relative percent abundance of C. virginianus foreach slide was calculated based on the number of Catinasters present per 400 specimens of calcareous nannofossils(Table 1).
3. Abundance and Biostratigraphic
Range
The relative abundance of Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.
was calculated for each core in the study area. This species typically represents less than 5% of the total assemblage in all four cores, and reached its peak abundance in
the Watkins ES core (Figure 3). Some samples in eachcore were barren or rare, containing only dissolution resistant species, due to poor preservation of calcareous microfossils in the sandy parts of the Calvert Formation and11/08/2014 12:35

Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.: A new species of Catinaster

51

Figure 3. Graph showing percent abundance of C. virginianus sp. nov.
to total nannofossil assemblage in the Watkins ES core. Lithostratigraphy and dinoflagellate biostratigraphy after Edwards et al. (2010). The
sample at 111.5 m is entirely barren of calcareous nannofossils.

Figure 4. Graph showing percent abundance of C. virginianus sp.
nov. to total nannofossil assemblage in the Martinak State Park core.
Lithostratigraphy and dinoflagellate biostratigraphy after Edwards,
Powars, and Self-Trail (unpub. data).

the silty St. Marys Formation.
The documentation of C. virginianus (usually as Catinaster sp.) from other basins has largely been attributed
to slumping of sediments, downhole contamination, or as
misidentification of specimens by mistaking broken discoasters for catinasters (Aubry, 1993; Svabenicka, 2002,
Denne, 2008). It is interesting to note, however, that ineach case, the older sediments in which the enigmatic
Catinaster forms have been found were dated as NN5 or
NN6, suggesting that early specimens of Catinaster, heretofore undescribed, existed and have been consistently
misidentified. Often these Catinaster specimens are overgrown, making identification difficult but resulting in ahigh preservation potential.
The first occurrence (FO) of Catinaster virginianus in
the study area occurs after the last occurrence (LO) of Helicosphaera ampliaperta and before the LO of Sphenolithus heteromorphus, which restricts the FO of this species
to Zone NN5. The co-occurrence of C. virginianus with
Discoaster musicus, which has its FO in mid-NN5, andwith S. heteromorphus in both the Martinak State Park andthe Langley cores further restricts the FO of this species to
mid-to-late NN5. The presence of dinoflagellate species
Habibacysta tectata, which has it’s FO near the middle
of dinoflagellate Zone DN5, with Cleistosphaeridium
placacanthum, whose LO defines the top of Zone DN5,
at 88.0-88.2 m in the Ashby core, corroborates a mid-tolate Zone NN5 placement. Although rare specimens of

C. virginianus are documented from one sample in lower
to middle Miocene sediments of the Martinak State Park
core (nannofossil Zone NN4 and dinoflagellate zone
DN4; Figure 4), these occurrences are attributed either toin situ burrowing of the overlying Zone NN5 sediments
into Zone NN4 or to drilling mud injection during drilling
operations. Examination of Plum Point Member calcareous nannofossil assemblages from other cores does notconfirm its presence in these sediments (Edwards et al.,2005). However, C. virginianus is consistently identified
in all four studied cores from the middle Miocene (ZoneNN5 of Okada and Bukry (1980) and dinoflagellate zone
DN5 of de Verteuil and Norris (1996)).
The precise last occurrence of Catinaster virginianus
nov. sp. is unclear. Miocene sediments of the Atlantic
Coastal Plain are often sandy and severely truncated, resulting in a package of unconformity-bounded units thatare relatively thin, and it is often difficult to place samples
within a specific nannofossil zone (Figures 3, 5, and 6).
However, specimens of both C. virginianus and rare C.
coalitus coalitus are documented from one sample (85.6m) from the basal St. Marys Formation in the Ashby core,
which corresponds to late Miocene calcareous nannofossil Zone NN8. This suggests that C. virginianus has its
last occurrence within the early late Miocene (Tortonian
Stage) and that it overlaps briefly with C. coalitus coalitus. Additionally, the co-occurrence of dinoflagellate species Sumatradinium soucouyantiae (LO defines the top of

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 51

11/08/2014 12:35

52

Jean Self Trail

Figure 5. Graph showing percent abundance of C. virginianus sp. nov.
to total nannofossil assemblage in the USGS-NASA Langley core.
Lithostratigraphy and dinoflagellate biostratigraphy after Edwards et al.
(2005) and Powers et al. (2005).The sample at 131.4 m is entirely barrenof calcareous nannofossils.

Zone DN8) with Palaeocystodinium golzowense (LO at
the top of Zone DN8), along with the absence of Cannosphaeropsis passio (LO denfines the top of Zone DN7) at
85.0-85.1 m in the Ashby core, places this sample in Zone
DN8, and corroborates a Zone NN8 placement for the LO
of C. virginianus (Figure 2). Edwards (unpub. data, 2013)
notes that the St. Marys Formation in the Ashby core is anolder part of DN8 than has been previously recorded from
Maryland (de Verteuil and Norris, 1996).
4. Paleoenvironment and Evolution
In his discussion of the genus Catinaster, Martini (1981)
suggested that species of this genus were restricted totropical or subtropical regions, based on known distribution patterns documented from numerous coreholes. Distribution of C. viginianus and other enigmatic catinasters
from the Gulf of Mexico, the Mid-Atlantic region, andthe Czech Republic (Denne, 2008; Edwards et al., 2005;
Svabenicka, 2002), which were all located in tropical tosubtropical regions during the middle Miocene, supports
the theory that this genus had a preference for warm watersettings.
However, Peleo-Alampay et al. (1998) offered an alternative possible paleoenvironmental preference for Catinaster by suggesting that at least one species (C. mexicanus) preferred semi-enclosed basins or locations proximal
to the continental shelf. The type locality for Catinastervirginianus is located in the marine-impact Chesapeake
Bay impact structure. The ~85 km diameter crater is located on the continental shelf of the mid-Atlantic region

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 52

Figure 6. Graph showing percent abundance of C. virginianus sp. nov.
to total nannofossil assemblage in the Ashby core. Lithostratigraphy
and biostratigraphy after Edwards, Powars, and Self-Trail (unpub. data).
The samples at 79.5 and 82.6 m are entirely barren of calcareous nannofossils.

and formed when a bolide struck the region approximately 35.4 Ma (Powars and Bruce, 1999; Gohn et al., 2009).
The unique compaction of sediments within the structure
following impact significantly affected sedimentation andpaleoenvironmental controls in the region and resulted ina deep basin that existed from the late Eocene throughat least the middle Miocene, and possibly into the earlylate Miocene (Hayden et al., 2008; Kulpecz et al., 2009;
Gohn et al., 2009). Catinaster virginianus is consistently
identified from cores located in the Chesapeake Bay impact crater; it is extremely rare in the one core north of thecrater rim.
Peleo-Alampay et al., (1998) comprehensively summarized the taxonomy and evolutionary relationship among
species within the Catinaster group, and hypothesizedthat this group evolved from the Discoasters, in particular from Discoaster transitus. This publication noted thatwhat the authors considered to be the ancestral species, C.
coalitus coalitus, had its first occurrence in the lower partof subchron C5n.2n, at approximately 10.9 Ma, and at thebase of Zone NN8 of Martini (1971; Zone CN6 of Okada
and Bukry (1980)). However, older forms of Catinaster
have been identified from other basins globally, typicallyfrom middle Miocene (NN5 or NN6) sediments. Aubry(1993) and Denne (2008) identified catinasters of middle
Miocene age from the Gulf of Mexico, which was a subtropical, structurally complex fluvial-deltaic and marine

11/08/2014 12:35

Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.: A new species of Catinaster

53
Figure 7. Possible evolutionary lineage of Catinaster species. Modified from Peleo-Alampay et al.
(1998).

system of depocenters and minibasins experiencing highrates of sedimentation during the middle Miocene (Combellas-Bigott and Galloway, 2006). Svabenicka (2002)
identified a similar form from middle Miocene sedimentsof the Carpathian Foredeep, an area that developed as aperipheral foreland basin and which contains over 3,000
m of middle Miocene marine sediments (Oszczypko and
Oszczypko-Clowes, 2012). Examination of publishedplates from Aubry (1993), Svabenicka (2002), and Denne(2008) suggests that what they figured are specimens of
Catinaster virginianus. In particular, the presence ofextended rays is clearly illustrated by Aubry (1993; Pl.
3, figs. 13-14), Svabenicka (2002; Fig. 7, n. 13-14) and
Denne (2008; Pl. 2, fig. 5a) and the basket shape is clearly
illustrated by Denne (2008; Pl. 2, Fig. 5b).
Radiation and population of individual basins could
easily have occurred via ocean currents such as the Gulf
Stream. This warm-water current has been active since
the Late Cretaceous (Pinet and Popenoe, 1985; Watkins
and Self-Trail, 2005), flowing east from the Gulf of Mexico, then heading northward along the mid-Atlantic seaboard, and currently trending eastward towards Europe
and the Mediterranean region at the Cape Hatteras shelf
break. In the most likely scenario, C. virginianus evolvedin the Gulf of Mexico and was carried northward to the
Chesapeake Bay impact structure basin, and from there
was carried eastward towards the Carpathian Foredeep.
Radiation was most likely rapid, as evidenced by the presence of C. virginianus in middle Miocene sediments in
multiple basins.
Based on the presence of this new ancestral formof Catinaster, which is considerably older than both C.
coalitus and Discoaster transitus, it is unlikely that theevolutionary lineage of Peleo-Alampay et al. (1998) is
entirely correct. The presence of two stems on C. virginianus, one each on the proximal and distal surfaces (seeSystematic Paleontology section; Plate 1, figs. 3-4), alongwith the broad bifurcatations that make up the basket edge
on the proximal side and the slender, easily broken rays
that extend outward from the distal side, suggests that thegenus Catinaster did indeed evolve from the discoastergroup. However, it is unlikely to have evolved from D.
transitus, as suggested by Peleo-Alampay et al., (1998),
which has a first occurrence near the base of Zone NN8.

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 53

Rather, it most likely evolved from the Discoaster variabilis lineage (Figure 7).
5. Systematic Paleontology
All figured specimens and type species are stored in thecalcareous nannofossil laboratory at the U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia. Species descriptive terms predominantly follow the terminology of Martini and Worsely (1971) and Peleo-Alampay et al., (1998), with additions
by Young et al., (1997). Light photomicrographs of selected specimens were taken in cross-polarized (XPL) andphase contrast (PC) at the same magnification (x2000).
Order DISCOASTERALES Hay, 1977
Family DISCOASTERACEAE Tan, 1927
Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.
Pl. 1 figs. 1-12
Pl. 2 fig. 1-3
Catinaster sp. Aubry, (1993), Pl. 3, fig. 13-15
Catinaster sp. sensu Perch-Nielsen (1985),
Svabenicka (2002), Fig. 7, n. 13-14
Catinaster sp. “A”, Denne (2008), Pl. 2, figs. 5a, 5b
Catinaster cf. C. coalitus, Edwards et al. (2010),
Fig. 13G
Derivation of Name: Named after the state of Virginia, in the United States, where this species is commonly
found in crater sediments that filled the basin created by
the Chesapeake Bay impact event. Diagnosis: Small to
medium-sized Catinaster, six-rayed and basketlike, withthicker bifurcated rays on the proximal side and more
slender rays on the distal side. Occasional seven-rayedmorphotypes rare (Plate 1, fig. 12). Description: A species of Catinaster having a broad usually six-rayed, star
shaped central stem on the proximal side (Plate 1, figs. 3a,4a) from which six short rays with broadly bifurcated tips
extend distally at an angle, forming a broadly sub-hexagonal rim (Figure 8; Plate 1, figs. 1, 7). The bifurcate tips are
typically in close proximity with each other in well-preserved samples, and occasionally touch in specimens thatclearly show calcite overgrowth (i.e. thickened rays andbifurcations, higher order birefringence patterns). Interray angles are somewhat rounded. The central stem on

11/08/2014 12:35

54

Jean Self Trailthe distal side is almost identical to the proximal side, anddoes not extend beyond the edges of the basket (Plate 1,
figs. 3b, 4b). Slender rays with slightly rounded, bifurcated tips extend from the distal edges of the basket and areeasily broken or missing entirely (Figure 8; Plate 2, fig.
1). Catinaster virginianus occasionally has seven-rayedvariants. Differentiation: Catinaster virginianus can bedifferentiated from all other catinasters by the presence ofa stem on both the proximal and distal surfaces (Plate 1,
figs. 3-4; Figure 8) and by the presence of slender rays that
extend past the distal edge of the basket (Plate 2, fig. 1).
Catinaster virginianus most closely resembles C. coalitus
coalitus, from which it can be differentiated by the presence of a broad star-shaped central stem on the proximalside.. The rim is often sub-hexagonal in C. virginianus,
whereas it is fully hexagonal in C. coalitus coalitus. The
bifurcate ray tips do not meet in C. virginianus, whereas
they only occasionally have gaps in early forms of C. coalitus coalitus. Catinaster virginianus differs from C. coalitus extensis in lacking arms associated with the central
stem that extend out beyond the edge of the basket. Catinaster virginianus has a rare 7-rayed morphotype not seenin any other species of Catinaster. Dimensions: Catinaster virginianus ranges from 4.5-8.0 µm in size, andaverages 6.18 µm (n=30). Holotype: Pl. 2, fig. 1, distal
view. Paratypes: Pl. 1, fig. 2, distal view; Pl. 1, fig. 4,
side view. Type locality: USGS-NASA Langley Core,
Hampton, VA (USA). Type level: Middle Miocene (Serravallian), 134.4 m. Occurrence: NN5-NN8.
AppendixCatinaster coalitus coalitus Martini & Bramlette, 1963
Catinaster coalitus extensis (Martini & Bramlette, 1963)
Peleo-Alampay et al., 1998
Catinaster mexicanus Bukry, 1971
Discoaster musicus Stradner, 1959
Discoaster sanmiguelensis Bukry, 1981
Discoaster transitus Peleo-Alampay et al., 1998
Discoaster variabilis Martini & Bramlette, 1963
Helicosphaera ampliaperta Bramlette & Wilcoxon, 1967
Sphenolithus heteromorphus Deflandre, 1953

Figure 8. Schematic drawing of Catinaster virginianus showing proximal, distal, and side views. Proximal and distal views are on different
focal planes.

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 54

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Lucy Edwards for pertinent and helpful discussions regarding environment ofdeposition in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure andAlyssa Peleo-Alampay, Laurel Bybell, and Mike Styzen
for their input regarding the genus Catinaster. Thanks to
Ellen Seefelt for assistance with drafting. Laurel Bybell
supplied SEM pictures of C. virginianus and Mike Styzen
graciously searched for specimens with unbroken rays in
the light microscope. An early draft of this manuscript
benefitted from the reviews of Lucy Edwards and Laurel
Bybell. The author wishes to thank Mike Styzen and an
anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful reviews. Funding for this paper was provided in part by the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, the Maryland
Geological Survey, and the USGS Virginia Water Science
Center (Richmond).

11/08/2014 12:35

Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.: A new species of Catinaster

55

Plate 1Catinaster virginianus, figs. 1-2: USGS-NASA Langley core, 136.6 m; figs. 3-4: USGS-NASA Langley core,
136.6 m, side view focused up (a), middle focus (b), focused down (c); figs. 5-6, 12: USGS-NASA Langley core,
134.4 m; figs. 7-11: Watkins ES core, 118.1 m. PC = phase contrast; TL = transmitted light.
Remaining illustrations = cross-polarized light.

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 55

11/08/2014 12:35

56

Jean Self Trail

Plate 2

Plate 2. Catinaster virginianus, fig. 1: USGS-NASA Langley core, 134.4 m, distal view;fig. 2: USGS-NASA Langley core, 134.4 m, proximal and side views.

Any use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US
Government.
References
Aubry, M.-P., 1993. Neogene allostratigraphy and depositional history of the De Soto Canyon area, northern
Gulf of Mexico. Micropaleontology, 39: 327-366.
Bramlette, M.N., & Wilcoxon, J.A., 1967. Middle Tertiary calcareous nannoplankton of the Cipero Section,
Trinidad, W.I.. Tulane Studies in Geology, 5: 93-131.
Bukry, D., 1973. Low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic
zonation. In: Edgar, N.T., et al., Initial Reports of the
Deep Sea Drilling Program, 15: 685-703.
Combellas-Bigott, R.I., & Galloway, W.E., 2006. Depositional and structural evolution of the middle Miocene
depositional episode, east-central Gulf of Mexico.
AAPG Bulletin, 90: 335-362.
de Verteuil, L., 1997. Palynological delineation andregional correlation of lower through upper Miocene
sequences in the Cape May and Atlantic City boreholes, New Jersey coastal plain. Proceedings of the
Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 150X:
129-145.
de Verteuil, L., & Norris, G., 1996. Miocene dinoflagellate stratigraphy and systematics of Maryland and Virginia. Micropaleontology, 42: 172pp.
Denne, R.A., 2008. Utilizing abundance changes of new
and non-standard calcareous nannofossil taxa to increase
biostratigraphic resolution in expanded continental margin deposits: Examples from the middle to lower Miocene of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, 58: 227-239.
Edwards, L.E., Barron, J.A., Bukry, D., Bybell, L.M.,
Cronin, T.M., Poag, C.W., Weems, R.E., & Wingard, G.L., 2005. Paleontology of the upper Eocene to
Quaternary stratigraphic section in the USGS-NASA
Langley core, Hampton, Virginia. In: J.W. Horton, Jr.,
Powars, D.S., and Gohn, G.S., (Eds), Studies of the
Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure—The USGS-NASA
Langely Corehole, Hampton, Virginia, and Related

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 56

Coreholes and Geophysical Surveys: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1688: H1-H47.
Edwards, L.E., Powars, D.S., Horton, J.W., Jr., Gohn,
G.S., Self-Trail, J.M., & Litwin, R.J., 2010. Inside
the crater, outside the crater: Stratigraphic details of
the margin of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure,
Virginia, USA. In: Gibson, R.L., and Reimokd, W.U.,(Eds), Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV: Geological Society of America Special Paper
465: 319-393.
Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C., Miller, K.G., & Reimold, W.U.,
2009. Deep drilling in the Chesapeake Bay impact
structure—An overview. In: Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C.,
Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., (Eds), The ICDPUSGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay
Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core
Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper
458: 1-20.
Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Schmitz, M.D., & Ogg, G.M.,
2012, The Geologic Time Scale 2012, Elsevier: 1144pp.
Hayden, T., Kominz, M., Powars, D.S., Edwards, L.E.,
Miller, K.G., Browning, J.V., & Kulpecz, A.A., 2008.
Impact effects and regional tectonic inisights: Backstripping the Chesapeake Bay impact structure. Geology, 36: 327-330.
Hilgen, F.J., Lourens, L.J., & Van Dam, J.A., 2012.
The Neogene Period. In Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G.,
Schmitz, M.D., and Ogg, G.M., (Eds), The Geologic
Time Scale 2012: 923-978.
Kulpecz, A.A., Miller, K.G., Browning, J.V., Edwards,
L.E., Powars, D.S., McLaughlin, P.P., Harris, A.D.,& Feigenson, M.D., 2009. Postimpact deposition in
the Chesapeake Bay impact structure: Variations ineustasy, compaction, sediment supply, and passiveaggressive tectonism. In: Gohn, G.S., Koeberl, C.,
Miller, K.G., and Reimold, W.U., (Eds), The ICDPUSGS Deep Drilling Project in the Chesapeake Bay
Impact Structure: Results from the Eyreville Core
Holes: Geological Society of America Special Paper
458: 811-837.

11/08/2014 12:35

Catinaster virginianus sp. nov.: A new species of Catinaster

Martini, E., 1971. Standard Tertiary and Quaternary calcareous nannoplankton zonation. In: A.Farinacci (Ed),Proceedings 2nd Planktonic Conference, Rome 1969:739-785.
Martini, E., 1981. Oligocene to Recent calcareous nannoplankton from the Philippine Sea, Deep Sea Drilling
Project Leg 59. In: Kroenke, L., and Scott, R., (Eds.),
Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 59:
547-565.
Martini, E., & Bramlette, M.N., 1963. Calcareous nannoplankton from the experimental Mohole drilling.
Journal of Paleontology, 37: 845-856.
Martini, E., & Worsley, T.R., 1971. Calcareous nannofossils from the western equatorial Pacific Leg 7. Initial
Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Program, Part 2, 7:1471-1507.
Oszczypko, N., & Oszczypko-Clowes, M., 2012. Stagesof development in the Polish Carpathian Foredeep
basin. Central European Journal of Geosciences, 4:138-162.
Okada, H., & Bukry, D., 1980. Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphy zonations (Bukry, 1973;1975). Marine Micropaleontology, 5: 321-325.
Peleo-Alampay, A., Bukry, D., Liu, L., & Young, J.R.,
1998. Late Miocene calcareous nannofossil genus
Catinaster: Taxonomy, evolution, and magnetobiochronology. Journal of Micropalaeontology, 17:71-85.
Perch-Nielsen, K., 1985. Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils. In Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B., and Perch-Nielsen,K., (Eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy, 1: 427-554.
Pinet, P.R., & Popenoe, P., 1985. A scenario of MesozoicCenozoic ocean circulation over the Blake Plateau and

JNR_33_1_txt.indd 57

57

its environs, Geological Society of America Bulletin,
96: 618-626.
Powars, D.S., & Bruce, T.S., 1999. The effects of the
Chesapeake Bay impact crater on the geologicalframework and correlation of hydrogeologic units of
the Lower York-James Peninsula, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1612: 1-82.
Powars, D.S., Bruce, T.S., Edwards, L.E., Gohn, G.S.,
Self-Trail, J.M., Weems, R.E., Johnson, G. H., Smith,
M.J., & McCartan, C.T., 2005. Physical stratigraphyof the Upper Eocene to Quaternary postimpact sectionin the USGS-NASA Langley core, Hampton, Virginia.
In Horton, J.W., Jr., Powars, D.S., and Gohn, G.S.,(Eds), Studies of the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure—The USGS-NASA Langely Corehole, Hampton,
Virginia, and Related Coreholes and GeophysicalSurveys: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1688: G1-G44.
Svabenicka, L., 2002. Calcareous nannofossils of theUpper Karpatian and Lower Badenian deposits in
the Carpathian foredeep, Moravia (Czech Republic).
Geologica Carpathica, 53(3): 197-210.
Watkins, D.K., & Bergen, J.A., 2003. Late Albian adaptive radiation of the calcareous nannofossil genus Eiffellithus. Micropaleontology, 49: 231-252.
Watkins, D.K., & Self-Trail, J.M., 2005. Calcareous nannofossil evidence for the existence of the Gulf Stream
during the late Maastrichtian. Paleoceanography, 20:
1-9.
Young, J.R., Bergen, J.A., Bown, P.R., Burnett, J.A., Fiorentino, A., Jordan, R.W., Kleijne, A., Van Niel, B.E.,
Romein, A.J., & von Salis, K., 1997. Guidelines forcoccolith and calcareous nannofossil terminology.
Palaeontology, 40: 875-912.

11/08/2014 12:35